Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do same sex couples demand to be "married" (something defined in civil law)?
The argument most often stated is the "rights" of married couples - they want them.
Well, they can have the exact same rights without being "married" -
The marriages that occurred in CA since June are now invalid. Even Ellen's. They knew the risk they were taking when they married - they rolled the "dice" and it came up snake eyes.
If someone is to blame, it is the Ca Supreme Court - by denying the motion to issue a TRO pending the Nov 4th election.
Let's just remove the word "marriage" out of law, call it a "legal union".
Let religious people have a ceremony in a church called a "marriage" (they still do that don't they?).
Let all others have whatever they want to call it.
Well, they can have the exact same rights without being "married" -
How do you propose they go about that might I ask? Nothing on the books currently will do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
GreatDay, many of us in California provided similar arguments. I voted for Prop 8, and stated that I thought the gay community should focus on assuring they obtain appropriate rights such as adoption and insurance, without the requirement for the marriage label.
The reaction wasn't kind, to say the least. I've always viewed myself as pro-gay rights, all the way back to the Anita Bryant orange juice boycott days of the late 1970's, but now apparently some advocates view me as a bigot.
Let's just remove the word "marriage" out of law, call it a "legal union".
Let religious people have a ceremony in a church called a "marriage" (they still do that don't they?).
Let all others have whatever they want to call it.
To me marriages don't belong in law.
Civil unions can be, and are IMO, appropriate substitutes.
And many couples, religious or not, have lavish "marriage ceremonies" - many of them in places of worship.
GreatDay, many of us in California provided similar arguments. I voted for Prop 8, and stated that I thought the gay community should focus on assuring they obtain appropriate rights such as adoption and insurance, without the requirement for the marriage label.
The reaction wasn't kind, to say the least. I've always viewed myself as pro-gay rights, all the way back to the Anita Bryant orange juice boycott days of the late 1970's, but now apparently some advocates view me as a bigot.
I don't view it that way, I view it as the need to specifically identify what rights married folks have today that single folks can't obtain, and then see which would be appropriate for "civil-unions".
For example, I support their right to adopt, but I would be reluctant to support their right to spousal social security.
Let's just remove the word "marriage" out of law, call it a "legal union".
Let religious people have a ceremony in a church called a "marriage" (they still do that don't they?).
Let all others have whatever they want to call it.
To me marriages don't belong in law.
Agreed!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
